Talk:United States/Archive 74

RfC: Do you agree with the following a) lead sentence and accompanying note for the United States article, and, b) note for the info box area
Participants in the RfC are invited to survey the summary boxes above and the discussions at the link [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/United_States Requests for mediation/United States].


 * Amended lede sentence in the introduction.
 * "The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [n]


 * "Note: The federal district is Washington DC. The five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. There are eleven smaller island areas without permanent populations: Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island. U.S. sovereignty over Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed. See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. Both viewed April 6, 2016. -- US Legislation or regulation varies in definitions of the “United States” in four ways, preponderantly including the five major territories as a) 50 states, DC, five territories and possessions, see Homeland PL 107-296.Definitions (16)(a), b) 50 states, DC, five territories without possessions, see FEMA 44 CFR 206.1.Definitions(26), c) 50 states, DC and four territories without American Samoa, see Immigration 8 U.S. Code § 1101.Definitions (38), d) 50 states and DC alone, see IRS 26 U.S. Code § 7701.Definitions (9). Viewed July 5, 2016. ”


 * Infobox.
 * add to existing area a note
 * 3,531,905.43 sq mi [note]
 * Note: ''U.S. Census Bureau reports in its “State Area Measurements and Internal Point Coordinates” of August, 2010, “State and other areas” Total Area (land and water) as 3,805,927 Sq. Mi., 9,857,306 Sq. Km. This includes the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas" of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands. It does not include minor outlying islands.’'

Please indicate whether you support or oppose the above a) lede and note and b) info box area footnote. Comments and questions are welcome in the section below. The RfC discussion will be moderated by Keithbob and me from the Mediation Committee. Sunray (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Initial Statements of 200 words, max

Support

 * Support mediation editor. The Gnome (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support mediation editor. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Can live with Alternate A or B lede and note below of July 15.
 * Support mediation editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support mediation editor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support mediation editor. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support (sent here by RfCbot) After reading through the discussions it seems clear that a lot of hard work and thought has gone into this. It looks solid. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Though there should be a comma before the "and", since we're using AmEng Oxford spelling. Illegitimate Barrister 15:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and per above, and simply because no one else owns these territories and possessions which are not countries in of themselves. Ergo, they are part of the United States. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. These outer areas of the U.S. aren't countries any more than the Special Administrative Regions of China aren't (for the most part) politically part of Mainland China, but are part of the country of China as a whole. --Seqqis (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the proposed amendments; solid and well supported. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  12:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Capitalismojo. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose mediation editor. TFD (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The ambiguity of the term "United States" needs to be dealt with more prominently than being relegated to an explanatory note and buried in a list of string citations to primary sources. One citation to American Jurisprudence would make it clearer, but not prominent enough. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose (a) toο much stuff here to read but if the concept is that complicated it requires a huge note then it should be explained in the article body or separate article not in a note in the lead. Notes are for simple one sentence statements of clarification or extra information not long explanations complicated by loads of references. Dont have a view on (b). MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm adding the point you raise to the "Comments and questions" section below. Sunray (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheVirginiaHistorian
I. Insular (islander) “native-born” Americans (US Census ) should be included in the US country article lede sentence. Possessions are also included in a geographical sense for the general reader in an international context (politically, not in a narrow internal judicial, constitutional, meaning). The US government includes them all by definition and as “contiguous zone”, “geographical sense” and within the US constitutional “framework” (22.), and three scholars use “encompasses” , “composed of” and “a part of”  the US.

II. DC and the five major territories are found in wide ranging applications by USG sources, , and by scholars as “included” , officially a part of”  and in the “US federal system”. Since the Insular Cases Congress has enacted law making insular territories “officially” “included”  “within”  the US federal system. An unchallenged Federal District Court held that Puerto Rico is “in fact” politically incorporated (p.26 ), see constitutional scholar confirmation (2009 p.1175 ).

III. Haider-Markel (2008) notes the five major territory ambiguous status, "They are officially a part of U.S. territory,” … despite remaining judicially 'unincorporated territories’. (p. 649 ). --- The note reflects the ambiguity in four compositions of “United States” as a term in US law and regulations. Esoterica for internal constitutional law is irrelevant to a discussion of geographic extent for the general reader. --- The Mediation does not assert that the US policy is illegal in the territories, no scholarly source referenced asserts illegality in the USG regime.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Four Deuces
The position of most legal experts as well the Supreme Court of the United States,[  ] the executive and Congress is that the unincorporated territories of the United States are administered by  the United States but not part of the United States. The legal position was settled in the Insular cases, which is still good law. As a consequence, the Constitution does not apply in full, although it does protect the fundamental human rights in those territories. Recently, the Supreme Court has decided that these same rights apply to detainees in Guantanamo Bay. However, other provisions do not apply. Hence there is no birthright citizenship in American Samoa, there are different federal tax rules, etc.

The U.S. government treats the territories as part of the U.S. for some purposes and has for example extended by legislation birthright citizenship to four territories. That has not changed their constitutional status.

Some scholars have argued that the territories are part of the U.S. and consequently current government policy is illegal. That is a minority opinion.

Statement by Alanscottwalker
These places are discussed as "divisions" in this article, so for a summary lead this is good, also from the mediation, see:

Comments and questions

 * Why are the territories explicitly listed in the intro note but not the states? Why is it more important to know what the territories are in that one spot? --Golbez (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because whether the territories are to be included was the whole point. The states were never at issue, and can be found in a list.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The territories can be found in a list as well. You can include the territories without listing them, much the same way we include the states without listing them. --Golbez (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it says "the 9 uninhabited territories are..." then lists nine. Then it lists two more. Are these to be considered territories? Why not just say there are 11 uninhabited territories, and then combine the sentences? It makes it seem like there are 50 states, a district, 5 inhabited territories, 9 uninhabited territories... and then these other two that don't fit into any category? Finally, it seems odd to call these out for being administered by a second party, when part of Maine is administered by Canada yet not mentioned at all. I still say omit the list entirely, but if it's going to be included, say there are 11 uninhabited territories, two of which are administered by Colombia. Saying there are 9 then giving a list of 11 is confusing to the reader. (and perhaps the territorial disputes are better dealt with in text, instead of in a footnote? That way you can mention the disputes involving Machias Seal Island, Navassa Island, and Wake Island?) --Golbez (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the suggestion for a copyedit, "The 50 states, the federal district at Washington, DC, the five major territories and the nine uncontested possessions are found at List, and two uninhabited possessions are disputed, Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo. See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document …” ? Something to consider, but it did not reach consensus among eleven participants in the Mediation.
 * The other named island disputes are not sourced yet. The point is to include reliably sourced territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the list should be linked from the text, just like the list of states is. Territories aren't special, they don't need special treatment. Frankly the whole thing should be handled in text rather than hiding it in a footnote, but that part seems to be settled law so I'm not going to poke it too sharply. --Golbez (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, a clarification - I rather like the idea of including the various definitions of the country in a footnote. But not the list. That's excessive. And maybe the footnote belongs attached to text lower down in the article that explains what the territories are, rather than at the top. (Is there going to be any verbiage added lower to explain the territories? As it is, there's no mention of the uninhabited territories whatsoever. It would be odd to mention them in the intro but never again. Also, is there a substantive difference between "federal union" and "federal republic"? Your intro states it's a federal republic with states, district, territories, etc., but lower it says it's a federal union solely of 50 states.) --Golbez (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, more than two are disputed. Yes, two are claimed by the US and administered by others, but a further two are claimed by others but administered by the US. It makes sense to only include the former in this regard but a better term than simply "disputed" is required. "Two are claimed by the US but administered by Colombia: ", perhaps. --Golbez (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I had made similar point about not listing the territories. Though, IIRC, that may have been when they were all listed in the first sentence. I may have acquiesced in moving them to the note. older ≠ wiser 21:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * They were all in the first sentence at one point? good lord. --Golbez (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the previous “federal union” copy edit, the Encyclopedia Britannica uses “federal republic of 50 states” without DC or the territories . In the introduction the Mediation sought to include DC and the territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Τhe RfC process is turning into a repetition of the discussion held when at the mediation stage. Prospective participants to the RfC could be reluctant to join in such an already hot and furious debate! Is this what we want? -The Gnome (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Golbez has made a reasonable proposal here which he did not propose during the Mediation, but it should be admitted here for consideration within the agreed upon 200 word limit per section. -- to date both sections could be collapsed in a box labelled "Mediation participant comments" positioned under each subsection. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No. My comments are equal in status to anyone who was not part of that mediation. I don't care about the content of your mediation, only in how it is presented here. Spend less time trying to figure out how to manage me and my comments, it's not your job. Instead, perhaps respond to my concern? --Golbez (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The assertion that the US is a federal union of 50 [sovereign] states is unsourced. It is redolent of states rights doctrines. However, the USG reports to the UN in its Core Report is that its “Constitutional, political and legal structure” is, "a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions.” (22) . The point of the mediation is to source the scope of the United States in a geographic sense as reported by the USG and confirmed in published scholarship in the US and Canada. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I made no such assertion, so maybe you should be bold and add a citation-needed to that in the article or simply remove it? What about the other issues I had, like the listing of the territories in a footnote, the lack of mention of them in the article, the inaccurate usage of the word 'disputed', etc? --Golbez (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) The article sentence you pointed to made the unsourced assertion, you did not, I did not imply you did. I said only that I did not know the origin of the copy edit, the omission is now corrected on the main page using a reliable source.
 * 2) On using a link in the lede sentence rather than listing in the footnote — I said it was, “a reasonable proposal”. The United States is ... a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district at Washington, DC, five territories and various uninhabited possessions. -- is that your proposal? -- all might be linked to List of states and territories of the United States, etc. to their respective sections, or to separate articles of your choosing for each term, -- both the Mediation proposal and yours as I now understand it seem to enable a consensus around including all native born Americans in the US article lede, which is my central concern.
 * 3) Besides the nine undisputed "uninhabited territories" (generally called "possessions" by the USG) as sourced, the Mediation chose to use a GAO report for two disputed uninhabited possessions, and report them as the source does. You may know of sources for others, but they are undisclosed over six months of exploration.
 * 4) The insular commonwealths, territories and possessions are now mentioned in the “political divisions” section, sourced to the “Constitutional, political and legal structure” report by the US State Department to the UN (22) . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I'm unsure why you're linking the same link four times in one sentence (WP:POINT, maybe?), otherwise it sounds like my concerns are met; as long as there's not a full list of territories [or states or anything] in a footnote, then we're golden. (well, and as long as you don't make a mockery of the article by linking the same article four times in one sentence) Though, as for the disputed territories, it doesn't take much effort to find out that Navassa Island is claimed by Haiti, and Wake Island is claimed by the Marshall Islands. Again, I'm not saying these should be mentioned in the intro or even anywhere on this page; I'm saying, the use of the word "disputed" is insufficient if we're just dealing with Bajo Nuevo and Serranilla. Better terminology is required. --Golbez (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I just went to some pains to complete the proposal linking not just generally to the same article four times, but specifically to the section in the article dedicated to each polity, … the point is direct reader access ... thus:


 * 1) List of states and territories of the United States for states


 * 2) List of states and territories of the United States for the federal district


 * 3) List of states and territories of the United States for the five major territories


 * 4) United States Minor Outlying Islands for various (eleven) “possessions", as the USG terms them. This avoids using either the terms "disputed" or "administered". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

However, between the two terms, the term “disputed” is used to account for two additional possessions, Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo in the GAO report as of 1997. They are found at List of states and territories of the United States, sourced in a 2011 scholarly publication without reference to others.

The Navassa Island “dispute” has a CNN 2011 source, Wake Island “dispute” has an online almanac World Factbook as a source presumably updated in 2014. What alternative terminology do you suggest, "administered by the US", "administered by others"? It was my understanding that the Coast Guard operated on Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo often enough to sustain an international claim by the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If numbering the possessions, you must say that there are 11 possessions, not 9; saying there are 9 is simply incorrect. As for the proper terminology, saying those two are "administered by Colombia" seems the clearest route. --Golbez (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I have made the housekeeping amendment to the proposal, "There are eleven smaller island areas without permanent populations:", so as to make the numerical count consistent with the enumeration of possessions claimed by the US.


 * 2) Some detail in the note could be handled with link references to eliminate enumerating the uninhabited possessions, which would give you 70% of what you want, "There are eleven smaller island areas without permanent populations, most are undisputed, some are disputed." The name of the classification (disputed, administered) can be left to the List article, and the enumerations in each category can be left to the List article. This leaves the enumeration of the less well known but significant insular populations which together are larger than any of the twenty-four smallest states under 4 million: PR, MP, VI, GU and AS.
 * 3) Those interested in up-to-the-minute disputes and administration regimes for uninhabited possessions can click on the islet of their choice in the List article. The sources used for the United States article can be limited to scholarly published works, my proposal for slowing the velocity of updates on the page concerning contentious economic news flashes which never make it into scholarly secondary sources wp:psts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is it more important to list those 5 territories than the 26 states that are larger than them? :) --Golbez (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 26 states are each smaller than the five major territories together; the five major territories together are smaller than each of the 24 largest states. We should mention the five major insular territories which are less well known than the states, generally memorized throughout the US in elementary school.
 * 2) How about as a concession to your objection to "dispute", and parallel to PointsofNoReturn suggestion, just linking possessions in the note to United States Minor Outlying Islands claimed by the US and not make a distinction about which are disputed, contested, administered, etc. at all, thus: "There are eleven smaller island areas without permanent populations." ? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

So we may have two alternates, both of which avoid issues of "disputed" and "administered" territory by using the United States Minor Outlying Islands link. Alternate A - eliminating possession enumeration, with differences from the Mediation proposal in Alternate A in bold font -- and Alternate B - eliminating all enumerations: Have I fairly represented your concerns in Alternate B? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A word on TFD sources exceeding the agreed to 200 word limit. The US territories are not governed illegally, the Mediation is not advancing a minority view. The US holds that the territories it claims are self-governing p.8 and constitutionally within the US federal system (22). The courts once ruled in the Insular Cases giving the USG latitude to govern conquered peoples of "alien races" with military rule. Those same populations are now US citizens (1% US nationals) under elective self-governance. The Insular Case regime has been politically superseded by a sequence of Congressional law, with the exception of a narrow application of the Commerce Clause.

No scholarly published sourced used by the Mediation called the USG policy in the territories "illegal", nor has any reliable, scholarly published source wp:psts been identified which has determined them "external" to the US. Errors of fact should be directly addressed, unsourced assertions of an editor's own making should be pointed out. -200- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting both what I wrote and what sources say. I said in the mediation that you were significantly aware of what my comments would be that you should address them in your statement rather than create walls of rebuttal discussion.  In fact my statement above is copied from the mediation.  I and a few other editors thought it better to just post our statements and avoid arguement.  If you want to edit your statement to include anything you forgot to add, then go ahead and do so.  I suggest you collapse this discussion.  TFD (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As always, per WP:Talk please keep your comments on content and avoid personalizing the discussion. Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is being collapsed because it is counterproductive to the RfC. This is not a place to rehash or extend the mediation discussions. Your job is to make an official statement and walk away. At this point in the process we want to hear from the community not from mediation participants. I know this a long standing dispute and there is a lot of history and pent up frustration but please exercise some restraint. Thank you and peace!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Length and structure of note
Why do we have to say the number of territories the U.S. has in the lead. I feel like we are delving into international territorial law, and we should simply say that the U.S. has various territories. Stating the number of U.S. territories is not necessary. Other than that, the lead is fine. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * hum... I don't actually see a problem with that, at least for the inhabited ones. We say there's 50 states, I don't see an issue with saying there's 5 inhabited/major territories. And in fact the latest (maybe?) suggestion is to say "various" rather than trying to find a number for the uninhabited ones. (as a side note, I think the number is irrelevant. It's not like these territories have anything independent about them. No populace, no government, etc... to point out how many uninhabited territories there are is almost as useless as pointing out how many counties the country has.) --Golbez (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think "various" is a good option for the lead instead of saying which territories are major. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) We should mention the five major insular territories which are less well known than the states, which are generally memorized throughout the US in elementary school. The five major territories are 4 million native born Americans with permanent allegiance to the US.


 * 2) The note could just say, "There are eleven smaller island areas without permanent populations.", and avoid issues of international territorial law altogether. The summary statement would avoid enumerating all eleven unpopulated areas. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That proposal sounds good to me. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In his reasons for opposing the proposal, MilborneOne said: "... if the concept is that complicated it requires a huge note then it should be explained in the article body or separate article not in a note in the lead..." Comments? Sunray (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's particularly complicated (or overly lengthy), but at a glance may seem so because it cites a number of sources with long or technical-sounding titles (e.g., "FEMA 44 CFR 206.1.Definitions", "IRS 26 U.S. Code § 7701.Definitions (9)", etc.); however, that's not really something we can omit. Readers interested in these specifics won't mind that they're there, and those who aren't won't need to see them at all.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  09:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) The note is in other country articles. At France, in Note 17 there are fifteen territories both listed and located. At Great Britain, Note 13 says of the geographical extent, “Definitions and recommended usage varies.” then discusses two variations.


 * 2) This objection is similar to the Mendaliv disapproval, that in his view, “one citation from American Jurisprudence” would suffice. Such a citation remains undisclosed to reflect the four variations of “United States” in the Mediation draft. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Mendaliv's objection was about the use of sources. I see MilborneOne's comment as more generally addressing the length of the note. In a consensus decision-making process, it is common practice to try to deal with each individual's concerns. It isn't the first concern about the format of the note, so I've created a new subsection for discussion of the note (adding PointsofNoReturn's earlier comments on the structure of the note). Sunray (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the supports don't find it over-complicated. But the world is sometimes not simple, either - it's still enough information to inform - that's entirely in keeping with the purpose of a note. PointsofnoReturn was answered by linking, instead of listing out "possessions" (that's just a scribners edit, not really substance, as the link goes to a list, instead), leaving only the district and the five inhabited federal territories to list out (because, among other reasons, millions of born Americans inhabit those six places - but not in the possessions uninhabited). Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The goal of the WP Manual of Style is to: "... make using Wikipedia easier and more intuitive by promoting clarity and cohesion, while helping editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting. Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording. I like the way The Elements of Style puts it:
 * ""Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.""

- Elementary Principles of Composition, The Elements of Style


 * Would it make sense to agree to edit the note with the intent of making it as concise as possible? Sunray (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your style guide quote does not mention "lists" or "references" (eg. 'willy-nilly leave things off lists and don't reference'), which is basically all the note consists of, with references. But I am sure there is no opposition to saying anything shorter, as long as it says the same thing, with the references. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cf Australia ("the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania, and numerous smaller islands"), Canada ("ten provinces and three territories"), and New Zealand ("two main landmasses – that of the North Island, or Te Ika-a-Māui, and the South Island, or Te Waipounamu – and numerous smaller islands") There are no qualifications or footnotes, even though all three countries have territories.  France ("in western Europe and several overseas regions and territories") has a footnote listing its overseas territories, but there are no sources presented.  Great Britain is about an island not a country, but mentions that Great Britain also refers to a political unit that is defined differently in that it includes some outlying islands.  In comparison to other countries' leads, the proposed lead for the U.S. is overly complex.  TFD (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the proposed lead sentence for the US is more complex than (say) Australia's; the significant difference for the US seems to be the presence of the note which offers some additional detail and sources for those who are interested. To me this seems like an appropriate use of a note.
 * I also observe that Great Britain includes a multi-source note addressing multiple meanings of the term: "Definitions and recommended usage varies. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary defines Britain as an island and Great Britain as a political unit formed by England, Scotland and Wales.[11][12] whereas the Cambridge Guide to English Usage gives Britain as 'familiar shorthand for Great Britain, the island which geographically contains England, Wales and Scotland.'" In this case I see that the text includes numerical references to other cited sources rather than specifying those sources in full within the text.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  00:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the ariticle Great Britain is about an island, not a political unit. When a term may have more than one meaning we are supposed to mention what the other(s) are.  The U.S. article also does that:  ""America" redirects here. For the landmass comprising North and South America, see the Americas. For other uses, see America (disambiguation), US (disambiguation), USA (disambiguation) and United States (disambiguation)."  The lead to the Australia article does not say it consists of 6 states, a federal district and territories, then have a footnote listing the Northern Territory, the Australian Antarctic Territory, etc.  They are described in Australia.  TFD (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

As Mendaliv has pointed out, there is ambiguity in the definition of the United States, something should be noted, whether it is four examples to there is more than one meaning, or his single reference to American Jurisprudence. Lists in notes are found in the political unit United Kingdom at Note 6 for outlying bases and France at note 17 for its fifteen territories. Shortening the note has been proposed by dropping enumeration of the possessions. But the 1-3 minority seem to envision one of the following two alternatives, B or C.

Are there any alternations to the proposals to be suggested by any of the opposers, or do these two this fairly represent their views? We might consign any enumeration to a Note rather than footnote citations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see there is an more ambiguity than any other country. U.S. can refer to the country, the country and its possessions or the legal person.  Most countries of course do not have possessions and in some cases it is the sovereign that is the legal person.  TFD (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed that there doesn't seem to be more ambiguity than with other countries. Sunray (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * TVH, I think that your question is a good one. Based on the discussion here, Keithbob or I could, at some point ask those opposed if they maintain their objection and, if so, what alternatives they propose. Their responses would help to determine whether we have consensus or not. Sunray (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There may be some difficulty in reconciling those opposed, as Mendeliv sought to mention the ambiguity more prominently, and TFD thinks there is no more ambiguity than any other country. I’ve split the difference in the latest copy edit of Alternate C to include Mendeliv’s favored single source (which is not readily available to me) and deleting “ambiguous” to reflect TFDs take on it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you recall our discussion of "principled objections" during the mediation, consensus is not necessarily unanimity. It is important, though, to consider all viewpoints. Sunray (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

infobox
The intro states that the country is made up of 50 states, a federal district, and territories. Does the infobox reflect this statement? --Golbez (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The info box says the area of the US is 9,147,593 km2 (3rd); 3,531,905.43 sq mi.
 * We could add a Note for the 8 percent variance: U.S. Census Bureau reports in its “State Area Measurements and Internal Point Coordinates” of August, 2010, “State and other areas” Total Area (land and water) as 3,805,927 Sq. Mi., 9,857,306 Sq. Km. This includes the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas" of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands. It does not include minor outlying islands.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused; if the US is "composed of... various possessions" then shouldn't their area be included in the infobox as well? Area doesn't change daily, so even a few square miles here and there matters, especially considering the dispute over whether China is larger. And what about population, does the infobox reflect the population of the territories? (We're safe on ignoring the outlying islands here, as the census estimate daily changes likely outweigh the military population of the islands) --Golbez (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, if the U.S. is composed of several territories, then why should their statistics be relegated to a footnote? Shouldn't they be first class citizens in the infobox? --Golbez (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The info appears to refer to the 50 states and DC. To be consistent with the lead we need to use the figures for the 50 states, DC and all the territories.  No need to break down the territories in the notes, since the consensus is that they are part of the U.S. both under U.S. and international law.  There is for example no distinction made in the Canada article, where the territories are a substantial part of the area of the country.  Also, we should remove "last state admitted" and replace it with "last territory admitted."  TFD (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * TFD has a point there; the last major change to the US was in 1994 when Palau became independent. Or, if we're going purely by creation of new political unit in the US, then 1986, when the CNMI became a territory. --Golbez (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of last “new political unit in the US, 1986", when the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI, MP became a territory. Interestingly, in the 1991 GAO report on the US Insular Areas, Palau was not mentioned, it had UN trustee status at that time through independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, page 95 states the "Trust Territory... is not a territory or possession". (Though, Palau seems to think it became independent from the US...) But this is in the same part that appears to be arguing that the CNMI is not a territory? --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In an appendix to the GAO report, Eric C. Smith makes a distinction between US territory and US Commonwealth, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands CNMI is a commonwealth of the US as cited in the State Department Core Report to the UN.
 * So we have for the info box,
 * 1) last polity admitted, 1986", the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
 * 2) total area (land and water) of 50 states, DC, and five major territories at 3,805,927 Sq. Mi., 9,857,306 Sq. Km. State and other areas, report 50 states and DC area as a note.
 * 3) total population is 322,780,618 for 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and Island Areas;


 * fifty states, DC and Puerto Rico together are reported by the Census Fact Finder as 322,405,453 estimated as of July 1, 2014. Puerto Rico encompasses 90% of the insular population. As of 2010, the population of "Island Areas” without Puerto Rico is 375,165. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding the territories adds UTC-4, UTC+10, and UTC-11 to the list. If we count the island possessions as part of the country (and the intro appears to do so), we also have to add UTC+11 and UTC-12. --Golbez (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point for time zones, Guam's motto is: "Where America's Day Begins." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we maybe remove the antipodes section? That seems useless for such a large country. Not sure why it even exists. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅; a quick look also shows that a proposal to remove the antipodes parameter from the country infobox altogether was floated here. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We currently have two maps in the info-box: "The contiguous United States plus Alaska and Hawaii in green" and "The United States and its territories."  We should remove the first and rename the second "The United States."  TFD (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The second map has such a distorted view of the U.S. mainland, and especially Alaska, while labeling the several outlying territories more completely being its only advantage. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And there's actually precedent for putting the bulk of a country in a separate map when small parts don't fit in the projection; see Denmark, France and Netherlands. --Golbez (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree there should be a map showing where the bulk of the U.S. lies. But the first map currently shows contiguous United States plus Alaska and Hawaii in green, but not Puerto Rico and USVI (and perhaps other territories), although they lie within the map's area.  The map could be made smaller by omitting Hawaii and possibly Alaska.  TFD (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

So, three days and the infobox and the article still disagree. How long do I wait before I put some tag on the article? A week? --Golbez (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They already agree with reference to the internal cites to Time in the United States and List of countries and dependencies by area as they previously align with the lede sentence including territories. Correcting the coding on the population figures is not readily apparent, and can await an editor who can align Talk discussion with the Infobox without disrupting the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? All U.S. cities are "internal" and the country has no dependencies.  There is just one country composed of states, D.C. and territories.  TFD (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't see any exact agreement between the figures in the infobox here and the figures listed at List of countries and dependencies by area? Which figures are you seeing that match? (Also, why does that article list Puerto Rico, etc. as separate from the U.S.? Without even a note? Very confusing...) --Golbez (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, it seems that the US is a federal republic without the advantages of a unitary government for reporting statistics. It is a problem for those who would impose consistency throughout the federal, state and NGO bureaucracies, I agree. First thing to start off would be a centralized authority for what "American English" is as the French have at central government expense, I suppose, for those who hanker after that sort of thing. In the mean time, there is bound to be inconsistency. In the last Census the census of territories used the same database format as the states, so there is hope for more progress on many fronts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I struggle to make sense of this paragraph. There are lots of federal bureaus that supply statistics; in fact, you cited one earlier, the census bureau. What does that have to do with the infobox appearing to not agree with an article that you said it agreed with? [And I have no clue what that aside about English and French is about...] Let me reask the question: You said the infobox agrees with List of countries and dependencies by area, but I see no such agreement. Where is this agreement? --Golbez (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The ordinal ranking of the US area compared to other areas; has that been altered by use of the Census data for Total area of states and other places? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No one brought up the ranking; our issue was with including the territories in the area of the U.S. What made you think it was the rank and not the actual figure we were concerned with? --Golbez (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

TVH, there is nothing in what you write that prevents us from reporting the population of the entire U.S. Granted the U.S. census omits the areas of uninhabited territories, but we can use the area figure regardless and footnote the qualification, which btw is immaterial. TFD (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I note the area for the U.S. now uses the figures from the census for the United States, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, excluding the Minor Outlying Islands in the U.S. census (their terms). However it is still sourced to the CIA factbook, which excludes the unincorporated territories. Could you please change the source. Also, there is no need in the info-box to mention the relative size of the country, especially when it is disputed whether it is bigger or smaller than China. TFD (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)